Allowed

Usha Ramesh Chavan v. Bank of Maharashtra

DRT8 Aug 2022APPEAL/1/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench allowed an appeal against orders appointing a Court Commissioner without issuing notice. The court set aside the impugned orders dated 01st and 10th November 2021 and remanded the matter to the Recovery Officer to follow due process.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 01st and 10th November 2021 set aside; Recovery Officer directed to issue notices and decide after proper procedure.

Usha Ramesh Chavan versus Bank of Maharashtra — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL,AURANGABAD

¶2

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶3

ORDER SHEET

¶4

0 S	8.08.20 r. No.0	22 5 APPEAL No.01/2022
Classifi cation	No. of Exh.
		APPEAL No.01/2022
		Usha Ramesh Chavan ..Appellant Versus Bank of Maharashtra & others ..Non-Appellants Mr. A.A. Yadkikar – Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. J.N. Singh – Advocate for the Non-Appellant No.2. The matter is taken through VC. 1. In this matter after lot of arguments were heard it was pointed out that the orders of appointing of the Court Commissioner has been done. 2. The counsel for the Non-Appellant No.2 has drawn my attention to the orders dated 01^stNovember, 2021 in which it has ordered that at the request of the counsel of the Auction Purchaser the Court Commissioner has been appointed afresh. However, the orders have also been issued to the Court Commissioner which are under challenge.
		3. The Application moved by Non-Appellant No.2 and orders are of same date which shows that no notice has been issued. Though the counsel for the Non-Appellant No.2 submits that all the parties were present however the ordersheet shows that nobody was present on behalf of the Certificate Debtors and the Certificate-Holder Bank. The correct procedure is if an Interlocutory Application is moved a proper notice has to

¶5

[SBJ] (Appeal No. 01/2022) Page 1 of 2

¶6

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL,AURANGABAD

¶7

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶8

ORDER SHEET

¶9

issue to all the parties before passing any orders.

¶10

1. In these circumstances, I set-aside the orders dated 01^st November, 2021 and 10^th November, 2021 and let the Recovery Officer issue notices on the application filed by the Auction Purchaser to all the parties including the present appellant herein.

¶11

1. In view of the above, I pass the following order through video conferencing. ORDER

¶12

A. The Appeal No.1 of 2022 stands disposed off. B. The orders of the Recovery Officer dated 01^st November, 2021 and 10^th November, 2021 is hereby set-aside and let the Recovery Officer issue notices on the application filed by the Auction Purchaser to all the parties including the present appellant herein.

¶13

C. It is expected from the Recovery Officer that after giving sufficient notice to other parties and after filing reply and rejoinder he shall decide the matter including all the objections which might be taken by all the parties.

¶14

D. The matter is remanded back to the Recovery Officer for fresh disposal.

¶15

The parties may download the order from the official web-site. (Vimal Gupta)

¶16

Presiding Officer

¶17

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶18

[SBJ] (Appeal No. 01/2022) Page 2 of 2

Usha Ramesh Chavan v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Ramesh Chavan v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prajwal Kantilal Mithawala versus State Bank of India

Jagannath Garments versus State Bank of India

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ravindra

Gurunath Babuappa Samshette versus Solapur Janata Sahakari Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Sawji Cotton

Bank of Baroda versus Paradise Carpets